The concepts, terms, and acronyms of Virtual Private Networks (VPN) are well-known in the art. For example, the memorandum entitled BGP/MPLS VPNs, E. Rosen and Y. Rekhter, RFC 2547, March 1999, Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), is an example of the literature regarding VPNs. Similarly, the concepts, terms, and acronyms of MPLS networks are well-known in the art. For example, the memorandum entitled RFC 3031-Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture, E. Rosen, A. Viswanathan, and R. Callon, RFC 3031, January 2001, Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), is an example of the literature regarding MPLS networks.
However, the ability to analyze MPLS networks and VPNs has been limited by the network models that have been employed. For example, one model uses a Common Information Model (CIM) that defined objects and relationships. (see Common Information Model: Implementing the Object Model for Enterprise Management, Bumpus, et al., John Wiley & Sons, December 1999, ISBN: B00007FY8X). This model is limited by the pre-defined and standard objects and relationships defined in the Common Information Model (CIM). For example, one cannot easily capture the relationship between a VPN Routing and Forwarding Table (VRF) and a Route Target (RT).
In a second model, the definition of MPLS and VPN Management Information Bases (MIBs) are established. (See, for example, SNMP, SNMPv2, SNMPv3, and RMON 1 and 2 (3rd Edition, William Stallings, Addison-Wesley Pub Co, December 1998, pages 71-162, ISBN: 0201485346). However, MIBs typically do not capture relationships between objects. For example the MPLS end-to-end Label-Switched Path (LSP) is difficult to represent explicitly in a MIB.
The lack of a systematic model specifically suited for the MPLS and VPN object classes and their relationships limits several forms of important analysis. Hence there is a need in the industry for a method and system that overcomes known deficiencies in analyzing MPLS networks and Virtual Private Networks.